`
`
`
`Declaration of James T. Geier
`United States Patent No. 7,489,786
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BLITZSAFE TEXAS, LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,489,786
`Filing Date: December 11, 2002
`Issue Date: February 10, 2009
`
`Title: AUDIO DEVICE INTEGRATION SYSTEM
`
`____________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF JAMES T. GEIER IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 76
`
`BMW EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`
`
`
`I, James T. Geier, hereby declare and state as follows:
`
`Declaration of James T. Geier
`United States Patent No. 7,489,786
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Qualifications
`
`1.
`
`I have been asked to prepare a declaration on behalf of BMW of North
`
`America, LLC (“BMWNA” or “Petitioner”) in connection with a petition for inter
`
`partes review of U.S. Patent 7,489,786 (EX1001). Specifically, I have been
`
`retained as an independent expert consultant by BMWNA to provide my opinions
`
`on the technology claimed in, and the patentability or unpatentability of, claims 1,
`
`2, 4-8, 10, 13, 14, 23, 24, 57, 58, 60-65, 86, and 88-91 of U.S. Patent 7,489,786
`
`(“the challenged claims”).
`
`2.
`
`Although I am being compensated for the time I spend on this matter, no
`
`part of my compensation depends on the outcome of this proceeding, and I have no
`
`other interest in this proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`I have 30 years of experience in the communications industry designing,
`
`analyzing and implementing communications systems, wireless networks, and
`
`mobile devices.
`
`4.
`
`I received a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical Engineering from California
`
`State University in 1985. I received a Master’s Degree in Electrical Engineering
`
`from the Air Force Institute of Technology in 1990. I also received an M.B.A.
`
`from the University of Phoenix in 2001.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 76
`
`
`
`Declaration of James T. Geier
`United States Patent No. 7,489,786
`
`From 1986 to 1989, while in the Air Force and assigned to the 1815th
`
`
`
`5.
`
`Operational Test and Evaluation Squadron, I tested and evaluated wired and
`
`wireless communications systems supporting the transport of military data, voice
`
`and video information worldwide. For example, this included running tests to
`
`validate performance and compatibility of different communications devices, such
`
`as secure telephones. During this time, I was also an instructor at the 1815th
`
`System Evaluation School, where
`
`I developed and
`
`taught courses on
`
`communications technologies and test methods.
`
`6.
`
`From 1990 to 1992, while in the Air Force and assigned to the Information
`
`Systems Center, I designed and implemented computer networks for Wright-
`
`Patterson Air Force Base. This involved testing some of the first-available routers,
`
`switches and controllers in a laboratory environment and then later designing and
`
`overseeing the installation of corresponding networks throughout Wright-Patterson
`
`Air Force Base for supporting thousands of users.
`
`7.
`
`From 1992 to 1994, while employed at Adroit Systems, Inc., I analyzed and
`
`evaluated communications technologies for use in Airborne communications
`
`platforms, such as aircraft and satellites, to support secure transport of data, voice
`
`and video information.
`
`8.
`
`From 1994 to 1996, while employed at TASC, Inc., I designed and
`
`implemented communication networks for civilian and military applications. For
`
`example, I analyzed and designed for the U.S. Department of Defense an audio /
`
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 76
`
`
`
`
`
`video conferencing system for use by soldiers in battlefields. I also designed a
`
`Declaration of James T. Geier
`United States Patent No. 7,489,786
`
`highly secure communications network supporting data, voice and video
`
`applications for a U.S. Navy attack submarine.
`
`9.
`
`From 1996 to 2000, while employed at Monarch Marking Systems, I
`
`designed and developed wireless printers and corresponding networks for
`
`customers. This included designing wireless bar code scanners having voice
`
`command recognition capabilities. In addition, I designed and implemented
`
`wireless middleware
`
`that provided an
`
`interoperable
`
`interface between
`
`incompatibility bar code scanners and servers.
`
`10. Since 2000, I have been an independent consultant working under the
`
`business name Wireless-Nets, Ltd., where I have been analyzing and designing
`
`wireless devices, communications systems and applications. As examples, I have
`
`designed and tested voice-over-Wi-Fi user devices and networks, designed and
`
`implemented drivers for Bluetooth transceivers, and implemented microcontroller-
`
`based audio encoding for operation over ZigBee wireless networks.
`
`11. A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached.
`
`B. Materials Reviewed
`
`12.
`
`In forming my opinions expressed in this declaration, I have considered,
`
`among other things:
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 7,489,786 (“the ’786 patent”)
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 76
`
`
`
`Declaration of James T. Geier
`United States Patent No. 7,489,786
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0262528 A1 (“Herley”)
`ID3 Tag Version 2.3.0 Informal Standard, Nilsson, M. originally
`available at www.id3.org/id3v2.3.0.html, February 3, 1999
`European. Patent Application Publication No. EP 0950570 A2
`(“Ido”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,394,774
`Decision Instituting Inter Partes Review, Case IPR2016-00421,
`Paper No. 13 (July 7, 2016)
`U.S. Publication No. 2002/0196134 (“Lutter”)
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Claim Constructions in Case No. 2:17-cv-
`00430 (E.D. Tex.), served March 14, 2018.
` The audio/mpeg Media Type, Network Working Group, available
`at https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3003, November 2000 (“IETF”).
`File History of the ’786 Patent
`Wayback Machine search results for
`“http://www.id3.org/id3v2.3.0.txt”
`Plaintiff's Infringement Contentions Exhibit A, served September
`2017 in Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG et
`al., 2:17-cv-00418 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`
`
`
`1003
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`1007
`
`1008
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`1012
`
`1013
`
`
`In forming my opinions, I have also relied on my education and experience.
`
`C. Relevant Legal Standards
`
`13.
`
`I have been asked to consider the ’786 patent and what I have been advised
`
`is prior art to the ’786 patent, and to offer my opinions on the effect of that art on
`
`the claims of the ’786 patent. In particular, I have been asked to consider whether
`
`claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10, 13, 14, 23, 24, 57, 58, 60-65, 86, and 88-91 would have been
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the
`
`’786 patent (December 11, 2002). In my opinion, these claims would have been
`
`obvious as of that date. In particular, the claims would have been obvious based on
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 76
`
`
`
`
`
`the combinations of Herley, Ido, and Lutter set forth below, which I have been
`
`Declaration of James T. Geier
`United States Patent No. 7,489,786
`
`advised constitute prior art as of December 11, 2002.
`
`14. Petitioner’s Counsel advises me that the following legal principles apply to
`
`analysis of patentability based on 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103:
`
`a)
`
`In an inter partes review proceeding, a patent claim may be deemed
`
`unpatentable if it is shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the
`
`claim was anticipated by a prior art patent or publication under § 102
`
`and/or rendered obvious by one or more prior art patents or
`
`publications under § 103.
`
`b)
`
`For a claim to be anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102, every limitation
`
`of the claimed invention must be found in a single prior art reference,
`
`as arranged in the claim.
`
`c)
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), “[a] patent may not be obtained though the
`
`invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in
`
`section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be
`
`patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
`
`would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter
`
`pertains.”
`
`d) When considering the issues of obviousness, I am to do the following:
`
`i.
`
`determine the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 6 of 76
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of James T. Geier
`United States Patent No. 7,489,786
`
`ii.
`
`ascertain the differences between the prior art and the claims at
`
`issue;
`
`iii.
`
`iv.
`
`resolve the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
`
`consider evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness (if
`
`available).
`
`e)
`
`The relevant time for considering whether a claim would have been
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art is the time of alleged
`
`invention.
`
`f)
`
`I am to assume a priority date for the challenged claims of no earlier
`
`than December 11, 2002.
`
`g)
`
`A reference may be modified or combined with other references or
`
`with the person of ordinary skill’s own knowledge if the person would
`
`have found the modification or combination obvious.
`
`h)
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art is presumed to know all the
`
`relevant prior art, and the obviousness analysis may take into account
`
`the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would employ.
`
`i)
`
`In determining whether a prior-art reference could have been
`
`combined with another prior-art reference or other information known
`
`to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the following principles
`
`may be considered:
`
`7
`
`Page 7 of 76
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of James T. Geier
`United States Patent No. 7,489,786
`
`i. A combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
`
`likely to be obvious if it yields predictable results;
`
`ii. The substitution of one known element for another is likely to be
`
`obvious if it yields predictable results;
`
`iii. The use of a known technique to improve similar items or methods
`
`in the same way is likely to be obvious if it yields predictable
`
`results;
`
`iv. The application of a known technique to a prior art reference that is
`
`ready for improvement is likely obvious if it yields predictable
`
`results;
`
`v. Any need or problem known in the field and addressed by the
`
`reference can provide a reason for combining the elements in the
`
`manner claimed;
`
`vi. A person of ordinary skill often will be able to fit the teachings of
`
`multiple references together like a puzzle; and
`
`vii. The proper analysis of obviousness requires a determination of
`
`whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a
`
`“reasonable expectation of success,” not “absolute predictability” of
`
`success, in achieving the claimed invention by combining prior art
`
`references.
`
`8
`
`Page 8 of 76
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of James T. Geier
`United States Patent No. 7,489,786
`
`j) Whether a prior art reference renders a patent claim unpatentable as
`
`obvious is determined from the perspective of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art.
`
`k) While there is no requirement that the prior art contain an express
`
`suggestion to combine known elements to achieve the claimed
`
`invention, a suggestion to combine known elements to achieve the
`
`claimed invention may come from the prior art as a whole or
`
`individually, as filtered through the knowledge of one skilled in the
`
`art.
`
`l)
`
`The inferences and creative steps a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would employ are also relevant to the determination of obviousness.
`
`m) When a work is available in one field, design alternatives and other
`
`market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or in
`
`another.
`
`n)
`
`If a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement a predictable
`
`variation and would see the benefit of doing so, that variation is likely
`
`to be obvious.
`
`o)
`
`In many fields, there may be little discussion of obvious
`
`combinations, and in these fields market demand, not scientific
`
`literature, may drive design trends.
`
`9
`
`Page 9 of 76
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of James T. Geier
`United States Patent No. 7,489,786
`
`p) When there is a design need or market pressure and there are a finite
`
`number of predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`has good reason to pursue those known options.
`
`q)
`
`There is no rigid rule that a reference or combination of references
`
`must contain a “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” to combine
`
`references, But the “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” test can be a
`
`useful guide in establishing a rationale for combining elements of the
`
`prior art. This test poses the question as to whether there is an express
`
`or implied teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine prior art
`
`elements in a way that realizes the claimed invention, and that it seeks
`
`to counter impermissible hindsight analysis.
`
`r)
`
`A reference is a printed publication if it is “publicly accessible,”
`
`which requires a showing that the document has been disseminated or
`
`otherwise made available to the extent that interested persons having
`
`ordinary skill in the relevant subject matter or art can locate the
`
`document by exercising reasonable diligence.
`
`II. U.S. PATENT 7,489,786
`
`A. Overview
`
`15. Based on my review, I understand that the ’786 patent discloses an “audio
`
`device integration system” for integrating after-market audio components with an
`
`existing car stereo system. EX1001, Abstract. “Control commands can be issued
`
`
`10
`
`Page 10 of 76
`
`
`
`
`
`at the car stereo and responsive data from the connected devices can be displayed
`
`Declaration of James T. Geier
`United States Patent No. 7,489,786
`
`on the stereo.” EX1001, Abstract. Examples of devices that may be integrated
`
`include CD players, CD changers, MP3 players, satellite receivers, and DAB
`
`receivers. EX1001, Abstract. The audio device, along with one or more auxiliary
`
`input sources may be integrated with the car stereo, and a user may select between
`
`the various audio input devices. EX1001, Abstract. FIG. 1 of the ’786 patent is
`
`reproduced and annotated below:
`
`
`
`EX1001, FIG. 1 (annotated showing after-market audio devices MP3 player
`
`30 and CD player 15 in blue, interface 20 in red, satellite radio / DAB receiver 25
`
`and auxiliary inputs 35 in brown, car radio 10 and control head 12 in green,
`
`examples of a “first connector” in orange, examples of a “second connector” in
`
`
`
`purple, and examples of a “third connector” in burgundy)
`11
`
`Page 11 of 76
`
`
`
`Declaration of James T. Geier
`United States Patent No. 7,489,786
`
`I understand that, according to the ’786 patent, “integration” is achieved by
`
`
`
`16.
`
`positioning an interface 20 between the car stereo and the after-market audio
`
`device and/or auxiliary input being integrated. EX1001, 2:53-60. Control
`
`commands generated at the car stereo are converted by the interface into a format
`
`recognizable by the after-market audio device, and information received from the
`
`after-market audio device is converted into a format recognizable by the car stereo.
`
`See EX1001, 2:35-42. The interface includes a microcontroller programmed to
`
`perform the format conversion for signals to and from the car stereo and after-
`
`market audio device(s). EX1001, 8:46-9:7.
`
`17. The ’786 patent contains eleven independent claims (1, 25, 33, 44, 49, 57,
`
`66, 76, 86, 92, and 99), three of which are challenged herein (1, 57, and 86).
`
`Independent claim 1 is directed to a system that connects an after-market device
`
`and one or more auxiliary input sources to a car stereo. An interface is connected
`
`between first and second electrical connectors, for channeling audio signals to the
`
`car stereo from an after-market audio device. The interface also includes a third
`
`connector to an auxiliary input source, which can be selected using the interface.
`
`Claim 1 also recites processing control commands from the car stereo into a format
`
`command compatible with the after-market audio device, and processing data
`
`received from the after-market device is into a format compatible with the car
`
`stereo. EX1001, 21:32-64. The text of independent claim 1 is as follows:
`
`1. An audio device integration system comprising:
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 12 of 76
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of James T. Geier
`United States Patent No. 7,489,786
`
`a first connector electrically connectable to a car stereo;
`
`a second connector electrically connectable to an after-market audio
`device external to the car stereo;
`
`a third connector electrically connectable to one or more auxiliary
`input sources external to the car stereo and the after-market audio
`device;
`
`an interface connected between said first and second electrical
`connectors for channeling audio signals to the car stereo from the
`after-market audio device, said interface including a
`microcontroller in electrical communication with said first and
`second electrical connectors, said microcontroller pre-programmed
`to execute:
`
`a first pre-programmed code portion for remotely
`controlling the after-market audio device using the car
`stereo by receiving a control command from the car
`stereo through said first connector in a format
`incompatible with the after-market audio device,
`processing the received control command into a
`formatted command compatible with the after-market
`audio device, and transmitting the formatted command
`to the after-market audio device through said second
`connector for execution by the after-market audio
`device;
`
`a second pre-programmed code portion for receiving data
`from the after-market audio device through said second
`connector in a format incompatible with the car stereo,
`
`13
`
`Page 13 of 76
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of James T. Geier
`United States Patent No. 7,489,786
`
`processing the received data into formatted data
`compatible with the car stereo, and transmitting the
`formatted data to the car stereo through said first
`connector for display by the car stereo; and
`
`a third pre-programmed code portion for switching to one
`or more auxiliary input sources connected to said third
`electrical connector.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that independent claim 57 is similar to claim 1, but specifies
`
`that the after-market audio device is an MP3 player, and omits the third connector
`
`and auxiliary input source. See EX1001, 26:13-36. Claim 57 also recites the
`
`generation and transmission of a “device presence signal” from the interface.
`
`EX1001, 26:13-36. The text of independent claim 57 is as follows:
`
`57. An audio device integration system comprising:
`
`a first electrical connector connectable to a car stereo;
`
`a second electrical connector connectable to a portable MP3 player
`external to the car stereo
`
`an interface connected between said first and second electrical
`connectors for transmitting audio from a portable MP3 player to a
`car stereo, said interface including a microcontroller in electrical
`communication with said first and second electrical connectors,
`
`said microcontroller pre-programmed to execute:
`
`a first pre-programmed code portion for generating a device
`presence signal and transmitting the signal to the car stereo
`to maintain the car stereo in an operational state; and
`
`
`
`14
`
`Page 14 of 76
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of James T. Geier
`United States Patent No. 7,489,786
`
`a second pre-programmed code portion for remotely controlling
`the MP3 player using the car stereo by receiving a control
`command from the car stereo through said first electrical
`connector in a format incompatible with the MP3 player,
`processing the control command into a formatted control
`command compatible with the MP3 player, and transmitting
`the formatted control command to the MP3 player through
`said second electrical connector for execution by the MP3
`player.
`
`19.
`
`Independent claim 86 specifies that the after-market device is a video
`
`device. Like claim 57, claim 86 omits the third connector and auxiliary input
`
`source of claim 1, and recites the generation and transmission of a “device
`
`presence signal” from the interface. does not require control command or data
`
`format conversion. Instead, claim 86 recites integrating an after-market video
`
`device with a car stereo. EX1001, 28:40-56. The text of independent claim 86 is as
`
`follows:
`
`86. A device for integrating video information for use with a car
`stereo, comprising:
`
`a first electrical connector connectable to a car stereo;
`
`a second electrical connector connectable to an after-market video
`device external to the car stereo;
`
`an interface connected between said first and second electrical
`connectors for transmitting video information from the after-
`market video device to the car stereo, the interface including a
`
`
`
`15
`
`Page 15 of 76
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of James T. Geier
`United States Patent No. 7,489,786
`
`microcontroller in electrical communication with said first and
`second electrical connectors, said microcontroller pre-programmed
`to execute:
`
`a first pre-programmed code portion for generating a device
`
`presence signal and transmitting the signal to the car stereo
`
`through said first electrical connector to maintain the car stereo in
`
`an operational state responsive to signals generated by the after-
`
`market video device.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that during prosecution of the ’786 patent, the patent examiner
`
`stated that “interfacing auxiliary after-market devices with a car stereo was known
`
`in the art at the time of the invention.” EX1011, 416. The patent examiner
`
`indicated
`
`that he had not found prior art
`
`teaching or suggesting “the
`
`communication of incompatible audio devices” or “generati[on] and transmiss[ion
`
`of] a device presence signal to a car stereo…” EX1011, 416. However, the patent
`
`examiner did not consider Patent Owner’s interpretation of the ’786 patent claims
`
`as presented in EX1013.
`
`B.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`21.
`
`I understand that a patent must be written such that it can be understood by
`
`a “person of ordinary skill” in the field of the patent.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that this hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art is
`
`considered to have the normal skills and knowledge of a person in the technical
`
`
`
`16
`
`Page 16 of 76
`
`
`
`
`
`field at issue. I understand that factors that may be considered in determining the
`
`Declaration of James T. Geier
`United States Patent No. 7,489,786
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art include: (1) the education level of the inventor;
`
`(2) the types of problems encountered in the art; (3) the prior art solutions to
`
`those problems; (4) rapidity with which
`
`innovations are made; (5)
`
`the
`
`sophistication of the technology; and (6) the education level of active workers in
`
`the field.
`
`23.
`
`It is my opinion that in December 2002, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`relevant to the ’786 patent would have had: at least a Bachelor’s degree in
`
`electrical engineering or equivalent science/engineering degree and at least two
`
`years of experience in signal processing and/or electronic system design, or
`
`would have at least four years of experience in signal processing and/or
`
`electronic system design.
`
`24. Based on my experience and education, I consider myself to have been a
`
`person of at least ordinary skill in the art as of December 2002 (and through
`
`today) with respect to the field of technology implicated by the ’786 patent.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`25.
`
`In this declaration, I have analyzed the claims consistent with the “broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation” meaning of the claim terms, consistent with the intrinsic
`
`and extrinsic record, including the Board’s prior constructions of the terms
`
`“portable,” “interface,” and “device presence signal” as set forth in EX1007, Patent
`
`Owner’s proposed claim constructions set forth in EX1009, and Patent Owner’s
`
`
`17
`
`Page 17 of 76
`
`
`
`
`
`interpretation and assertion of the challenged claims in litigation as set forth in
`
`Declaration of James T. Geier
`United States Patent No. 7,489,786
`
`EX1013. I have also analyzed the claims considering the knowledge of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the arts of signal processing and/or electronic system design.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that Patent Owner’s statements in EX1013 provide examples of
`
`“portable” devices, an “interface” and a “device presence signal” which Patent
`
`Owner asserts meet the claims. For example, Patent Owner asserts that head unit
`
`may comprise an “interface,” and such an assertion requires interpreting
`
`components such as control devices or display units as the “car stereo.” See
`
`EX1013, 9, 18. Without Patent Owner’s interpretation, a head unit would
`
`normally be considered part of the car stereo, as the ’786 patent repeatedly
`
`discloses an interface as a device connected to a car radio. Furthermore, Patent
`
`Owner interprets displayed icons indicating a connected USB device as comprising
`
`a “device presence signal” (EX1013, 95-98), even though this scope is not
`
`described in the ’786 patent. Therefore, Patent Owner’s statements set forth in
`
`EX1013 are informative as to the asserted scope of the challenged claims, which,
`
`in my opinion, cannot be readily ascertained from the Board’s claim constructions
`
`and a reading of the ’786 patent alone.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`Page 18 of 76
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. CLAIMS 1, 2, 4-8, 10, 13, 14, 23, 24, 57, 58, 60-65, 86, AND 88-91 OF
`THE ’786 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`Declaration of James T. Geier
`United States Patent No. 7,489,786
`
`
`
`A. The Prior Art
`
`27.
`
`I understand that the ’786 Patent has an effective filing date no earlier than
`
`December 11, 2002, which is the filing date of the application for the ’786 Patent.
`
`I have been advised that the following patents and publications, relied upon in the
`
`grounds presented herein, are all prior art to the claims of the ’786 Patent.
`
`1. Herley
`
`28. Based on my review, I understand that Herley (U.S. Patent Publication No.
`
`2005/0262528) was filed in the United States on July 25, 2005, and published on
`
`November 24, 2005. I also understand that Herley is a continuation of U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 10/180,249, filed on June 26, 2002. I have been advised that
`
`Herley is prior art to the ’786 patent based on its June 26, 2002 priority date, under
`
`at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (pre-AIA).
`
`29. Based on my review, Herley discloses an “audio content delivery system”
`
`for an audio system in an automobile. EX1003, Abstract, ¶ [0010]. Figure 1 of
`
`Herley, annotated below, illustrates Herley’s mobile audio system 100:
`
`
`
`19
`
`Page 19 of 76
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of James T. Geier
`United States Patent No. 7,489,786
`
`
`
`EX1003, FIG. 1 (annotated showing external media source 116 in blue, user
`
`interface 102 and sound system 114 in green, high speed interface 110 and
`
`controller 104 in red, and tuner 106 in brown)
`
`30. Herley discloses a mobile audio system 100 that includes a controller 104,
`
`high speed interface 110 such as a USB interface for connecting an external media
`
`source 116 such as an MP3 player or CD player, and a sound system 114 with user
`
`interface 102. Controller 104 also connects to a tuner 106 or media database 112.
`
`2. Ido
`
`31. Based on my review, I understand that Ido is a European Patent Application
`
`Publication (No. EP 0950570) that was filed in the European Patent Office on
`
`
`
`20
`
`Page 20 of 76
`
`
`
`
`
`March 19, 1999 and published on October 20, 1999. I have been advised that Ido
`
`Declaration of James T. Geier
`United States Patent No. 7,489,786
`
`is prior art to the ’786 Patent under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) (pre-AIA).
`
`32.
`
`Ido discloses an automotive information system having a CPU module 11
`
`and a support module 12. EX1005, ¶¶ [0069], [0080], FIG. 2. FIG. 2 of Ido is
`
`reproduced and annotated below:
`
`EX1005, FIG. 2 (annotated showing a car stereo in green, interface in red, after-
`
`market audio devices in blue, first connector(s) in orange,
`
`and second connector(s) in purple)
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`Page 21 of 76
`
`
`
`
`
`33. As shown in FIG. 2 above, CD-ROM unit 14 and CD-ROM auto-changer 7
`
`Declaration of James T. Geier
`United States Patent No. 7,489,786
`
`are connected to the support module 12 via one or more bus connections, such as a
`
`Universal Serial Bus (USB). EX1005, ¶¶ [0060], [0061], [0077], [0078], [0098],
`
`[0160], [0170]. Main unit 11 (which has a display and controls) and an amplifier
`
`22 (which is connected to speakers) collectively form parts of a “car stereo,” and
`
`are also in communication with support module 12 via one or more PCI BUS
`
`connections. EX1005, ¶ [0124], FIG. 2. Support module 12 serves as an interface
`
`between main unit 11 or amplifier 22 (parts of the car stereo) and CD-ROM unit 14
`
`and CD-ROM auto-changer 7 (after-market audio devices).
`
`3. Lutter
`
`34.
`
`I understand that Lutter (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0196134) was
`
`filed on June 26, 2001 and published on December 26, 2002. I have been advised
`
`that Lutter is prior art to the ’786 Patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based
`
`on its filing date.
`
`35. Lutter discloses an audio manager 14 located inside a vehicle. EX1008,
`
`¶ [0014]. The audio manager 14 monitors for any wireless or wired audio sources,
`
`detects audio sources that are located in or proximate the vehicle. The audio
`
`sources can include any “device connected by wires [such as an ‘audio wiring
`
`harness 118’] to the vehicle’s electrical system,” as well as wireless audio devices.
`
`EX1008, ¶¶ [0016], [0038], [0041], FIG. 7. Audio manager 14 causes a graphical
`
`user interface (GUI) 30 of a car stereo to display detected audio sources. EX1008,
`
`
`
`22
`
`Page 22 of 76
`
`
`
`
`
`¶¶ [0016], [0019], [0020], [0022]. In particular, audio device manager 14 provides
`
`Declaration of James T. Geier
`United States Patent No. 7,489,786
`
`a signal to display detected audio devices on GUI 30, by causing GUI 30 to display
`
`icons representing the detected audio devices. EX1008, ¶¶ [0016], [0019], [0020],
`
`[0022].
`
`B. Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 23, and 24 are invalid
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Herley in view of Ido
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1
`
`
`
`a)
`
`1[1]: “An audio device integration system”
`
`36. To the extent the preamble of this claim is limiting, in my opinion, Herley
`
`discloses it. Herley discloses an “audio content delivery system” that is utilized in
`
`an automobile. EX1003, ¶ [0010]. Herley’s system 100 includes a controller 104
`
`and high speed interface 110 that connect a detachable external media source 116
`
`to a sound system 114 of the automobile. EX1003, ¶¶ [0042]-[0044], [0048].
`
`
`
`23
`
`Page 23 of 76
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of James T. Geier
`United States Patent No. 7,489,786
`
`EX1003, FIG. 1 (annotated)
`
`
`
`37. External media source 116 is connected to a high speed interface 110 (such
`
`as a USB mechanism) to “add and/or modify the entertainment content available to
`
`the system 100.” EX1003, ¶¶ [0042]-[0043]. Therefore, like the ’786 patent,
`
`Herley discloses a system that allows for the connection (integration) of an
`
`external media source (an audio device) with an automobile car stereo.
`
`b)
`
`1[2]: “a first connector electrically connectable to a car
`stereo;
`
`38.
`
`In my opinion, Herley discloses this element. Herley discloses a car stereo
`
`comprising at least user interface 102 and sound system 114.
`
`
`
`24
`
`Page 24 of 76
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of James T. Geier
`United States Patent No. 7,489,786
`
`EX1003, FIG. 1 (annotated showing a car stereo)
`
`
`
`39. User interface 102 allows “a user to select, control and obtain content to be
`
`received and played,” and can include a touch-sensitive LCD display and physical
`
`push buttons. EX1003, ¶¶ [0041], [0058]. Therefore, I understand that user
`
`interface 102 includes components for inputting commands regarding audio or
`
`other media played in the vehicle, and provides information for display about the
`
`media.
`
`40. Herley also discloses sound system 114 as part of system 100. Sound
`
`system 115 “can be a number of suitable devices such as, car radio, speaker system
`
`and the like.” EX1003, ¶ [0048].
`
`
`
`25
`
`Page 25 of 76
`
`
`
`
`
`41. User interface 102 and sound system 114 comprise a “car stereo” within the
`
`Declaration of James T. Geier
`United States Patent No. 7,489,786
`
`scope of Patent Owner’s interpretation of the term. I understand that Patent Owner
`
`agrees that the car stereo can be components such as head unit, display unit,
`
`amplifiers, speakers, and control units that provide control inputs. See EX1013, 9.
`
`42.
`
`In my opinion, Herley discloses at least two examples of a “first connecto
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
